On The Effective Use Of Punishment

[PAX]

but millions upon millions of dogs have been trained to milimetre perfection with Koehler leash methods and unless the modern day dogs have changed dramatically in personality, nerve and temperament, since Koehler trained them, all the negative perception towards a good leash correction when appropriate is bulldust.

Koehler was the new generation of "humane" trainers after the stick and boot up the bum methods became outdated Nek

I would love to watch one of his best obedience rounds and then compare it to one of todays top +R rounds.

[bedazzledx2]

I also dispute the numbers quoted....millions upon millions trained to millimeter perfection?????????

but millions upon millions of dogs have been trained to milimetre perfection with Koehler leash methods and unless the modern day dogs have changed dramatically in personality, nerve and temperament, since Koehler trained them, all the negative perception towards a good leash correction when appropriate is bulldust.

Koehler was the new generation of "humane" trainers after the stick and boot up the bum methods became outdated Nek

I would love to watch one of his best obedience rounds and then compare it to one of todays top +R rounds.

[Diablo]

I also dispute the numbers quoted....millions upon millions trained to millimeter perfection?????????

but millions upon millions of dogs have been trained to milimetre perfection with Koehler leash methods and unless the modern day dogs have changed dramatically in personality, nerve and temperament, since Koehler trained them, all the negative perception towards a good leash correction when appropriate is bulldust.

Koehler was the new generation of "humane" trainers after the stick and boot up the bum methods became outdated Nek

I would love to watch one of his best obedience rounds and then compare it to one of todays top +R rounds.

William Koehler began in the 1940's and his methods were used by more trainers than any other methods worldwide. Many trainers today still retain the original Koehler basic leash system especially in military and police training. Many systems perceived as belonging to someone else originated from Koehler. He did compete in the early days against positive reinforcement trained dogs and continued to win in obedience.............how he would go now, I guess we will never know???

[SkySoaringMagpie]

William Koehler began in the 1940's and his methods were used by more trainers than any other methods worldwide. Many trainers today still retain the original Koehler basic leash system especially in military and police training. Many systems perceived as belonging to someone else originated from Koehler. He did compete in the early days against positive reinforcement trained dogs and continued to win in obedience.............how he would go now, I guess we will never know???

Even if we accept your assertions* what value do you think talking about competitive trainers of utility/working breeds in the military/police environment has when you're talking about training principles on DOL?

This is a serious question by the way, these discussions always seem to cycle back to nostalgia about working and utility dogs that some of us find pretty irritating. That system you are talking about left a lot of casualties in its wake, including breeds that are not soft, but just unsuited to that method. Or dogs just unlucky enough to be handled by Joe Average rather than a top trainer. Those dogs (and people) have found much more success with a broader range of methods being available.

What about a pet Basenji being trained in house manners by an 8 y/o girl? Or an elderly lady training a well bred toy poodle in an advanced companion stream at the local obedience club who is there because she likes to work with her dog and catch up with friends? Would you train them the same way you train an 21 y/o male handling a military dog?

* and I don't, I think Susan Garrett would give anyone a run for their money

[elsa]

Punishment can range from a verbal correction, ignoring the dog for bad behaviour or a physical correction on the collar.

I am all for positive rewards for training young pups but at some point you are going to need to correct the dog ... and this correction is a form of punishment.

I agree Tilly. Punishment does not necessarily mean physical. It is teaching a dog there are consequences to actions, and that may simply be taking something off him he wanted, or not treating him or praising him. Then you have negative reinforcement, which to the dog, is punishment.

As has been said, consistency is the tool. Without that, the dog will just keep trying, or should I correct that, will not understand what is required, so simply doesn't know that it is doing wrong. There seems to be some confusion over positive and negative reinforcement and punishment. Positive punishment is rarely used these days, and while I try and use positive reinforcement wherever possible, there are times when corrections are necessary. Corrections are showing the dog what is required, and corrections are punishments where the dog is shown it is wrong, but not by physically smacking it. I can see where a lot of people are coming from. They see punishment as physical, but there are other ways to punish. There are people out there who would read it as physical, and for those people reading the original thread they would then feel vilified in using force. The posts that have followed have simply shown that the people who read these threads are good people, who only want the best for their dogs, but you are seeing it from the other side of the fence ie those who do not understand what it takes to get a dog working happily with trust in their handler, and without fear.

Edited January 7, 2010 by elsa

[corvus]

I often hear people talk about teaching dogs that there are consequences to their actions. I'd just like to point out that there is no need to do that with punishments. Rewards are a consequence as well if you think about it in those terms.

[Diablo]

William Koehler began in the 1940's and his methods were used by more trainers than any other methods worldwide. Many trainers today still retain the original Koehler basic leash system especially in military and police training. Many systems perceived as belonging to someone else originated from Koehler. He did compete in the early days against positive reinforcement trained dogs and continued to win in obedience.............how he would go now, I guess we will never know???

Even if we accept your assertions* what value do you think talking about competitive trainers of utility/working breeds in the military/police environment has when you're talking about training principles on DOL?

This is a serious question by the way, these discussions always seem to cycle back to nostalgia about working and utility dogs that some of us find pretty irritating. That system you are talking about left a lot of casualties in its wake, including breeds that are not soft, but just unsuited to that method. Or dogs just unlucky enough to be handled by Joe Average rather than a top trainer. Those dogs (and people) have found much more success with a broader range of methods being available.

What about a pet Basenji being trained in house manners by an 8 y/o girl? Or an elderly lady training a well bred toy poodle in an advanced companion stream at the local obedience club who is there because she likes to work with her dog and catch up with friends? Would you train them the same way you train an 21 y/o male handling a military dog?

* and I don't, I think Susan Garrett would give anyone a run for their money

It's a training method SkySoaringMagpie, if you don't like it, don't use it???. I doubt the "Joe Average" on DOL are 8 year old girls training Basenji's but the point is, negative reinforcement has been the method used exclusively and successfully where extreme reliability is required.

[elsa]

I often hear people talk about teaching dogs that there are consequences to their actions. I'd just like to point out that there is no need to do that with punishments. Rewards are a consequence as well if you think about it in those terms.

Absolutely correct Corvus. As we have to catch our dogs doing something wrong, we have to catch it being good and reward the behaviour so it knows it is doing it right. By reward, I dont necessarily mean food. I mean an encouraging word, like Good Dog, or a marking word, such as yes. People are often focussed on seeing what the dog is doing wrong, and not noting when it is doing good - makes for a pretty confused pooch! Even to the point that when you say 'Heel' and walk off, telling the dog it is good for following.

[Diva]

negative reinforcement has been the method used exclusively and successfully where extreme reliability is required.

From direct personal knowledge - not for search and rescue dogs.

In fact, the more I think about it the more wildly wrong that assertion is, for numerous examples of real life working dogs where extreme reliability is a criterion.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Diva

[SkySoaringMagpie]

It's a training method SkySoaringMagpie, if you don't like it, don't use it???. I doubt the "Joe Average" on DOL are 8 year old girls training Basenji's but the point is, negative reinforcement has been the method used exclusively and successfully where extreme reliability is required.

Plenty of parents on here tho'. In any case, it's not the method per se that I am objecting to - I am not against correction in all circumstances.

What I am objecting to is you putting your preferred method at the top of a heirarchy and attempting to discredit other perfectly suitable methods in the process, without any hard data to back it up.

[corvus]

I know someone in the States who is heavily into working lines of GSDs and her training mentor used to train police dogs. She says that most police and military dogs are trained with positive reinforcement over there these days, and that is purely because the dogs perform better. They bring in corrections when the dog is already trained to proof and that is all. She knows her stuff.

[Erny]

They bring in corrections when the dog is already trained to proof and that is all. She knows her stuff.

That's what most of the 'balanced' trainers do (well, of those that I know). It's a given that in the teaching phase, there is no room for corrections. It is only in the training phase that corrections are introduced where they might be necessary to increase reliability where reliability is required.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Erny

[Diablo]

It's a training method SkySoaringMagpie, if you don't like it, don't use it???. I doubt the "Joe Average" on DOL are 8 year old girls training Basenji's but the point is, negative reinforcement has been the method used exclusively and successfully where extreme reliability is required.

Plenty of parents on here tho'. In any case, it's not the method per se that I am objecting to - I am not against correction in all circumstances.

What I am objecting to is you putting your preferred method at the top of a heirarchy and attempting to discredit other perfectly suitable methods in the process, without any hard data to back it up.

What I discredit is the assumption that negative reinforcement will cause breakdowns in all dogs because it doesn't. In fact, some dogs thrive on their understanding that the handler holds the ultimate physical power over them and many dogs have been saved from a premature trip to rainbow bridge because of these training methods. No methods are correct for every dog and every situation, it depends on many variables what method on what dogs will work best for what needs to be achieved.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Diablo

[Jeff Jones]

I know someone in the States who is heavily into working lines of GSDs and her training mentor used to train police dogs. She says that most police and military dogs are trained with positive reinforcement over there these days, and that is purely because the dogs perform better. They bring in corrections when the dog is already trained to proof and that is all. She knows her stuff.

They bring in corrections when the dog is already trained to proof and that is all. She knows her stuff

That's what most of the 'balanced' trainers do (well, of those that I know). It's a given that in the teaching phase, there is no room for corrections. It is only in the training phase that corrections are introduced where they might be necessary to increase reliability where reliability is required.

What is this new and mysterious method of dog training you speak of.

Corvus that training method is hardly new to the states for police and military working dog programs, the states adapt there training programs from European country's. The KNPV has been running there training program for the past 100 years using those methods.

As I have said numerous times before, A purely positive police dog would not be on the end of my lead nor would it be on the lead of any experienced or competent police / military working dog handler I know. Bob Eden has attempted to supply purely positive police dogs and training to departments in the United States with disastrous results. It is not an effective or reliable method of dog training for police service dogs.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Jeff Jones

[corvus]

What I discredit is the assumption that negative reinforcement will cause breakdowns in all dogs because it doesn't.

I don't think anyone is saying that, though. I don't know about others, but my point has always been that following those eight rules can be quite difficult, even if you know your dog well and have good timing and a good understanding of dog body language. I have met professional dog trainers that at best possess decent timing and that's all. Why should we as dog lovers encourage the use of something that is not only unpleasant to dogs but difficult to pull off effectively? If I waited around to correct Erik every time he did something I didn't like I'd spend most of my life unteaching him things I don't like instead of teaching him things I do like. It's so easy to start training proactively instead of just reacting to whatever your dog comes up with and keep the punishments for fixing accidents in messing up with environmental reinforcement control. It's much easier to stick to the eight rules that way, and what's more, you get to spend most of your time telling your dog they are awesome and putting lots of positive reinforcement in the piggy bank for those moments you do decide you need something negative in the mix.

[m-j]

1. The punishment must be something the animal dislikes and something the animal does not expect.

This one confuses me for the punishment to keep the behaviour stopped doesn't the dog need to expect there to consequences for displaying the behaviour that is undesirable to the handler. Hence the reason, I believe, for rule no 5, (5. The punishment must be associated with the behavior, but not with the trainer. Otherwise, the trainer becomes part of the punishment and the animal starts fearing and disliking the trainer.)

.

Well if it's inconsistency the handler should be punished.

:D If the handler is using punishment I'm inclined to agree, but when a dog is being punished for something in many cases there are sooo many variables as to why the dog is being punished the dog has to go through several/many trials to guess which one it is to eventually get it right, traditional methods of teaching heeling is a good example, whereas when stopping an undesirable behaviour when what the dog is doing after the undesirable behaviour (to the handler) has ceased is irrelevant e.g. chasing something, it is easier to stop it with only one correction as there isn't much guessing on the dogs part.

However if the dog finds the behaviour extremely rewarding sometimes they will blow off the punishment to perform the desirable behaviour e.g. a trapped animal mutilating itself to escape from confinement, my sheep killer blowing off his punisher that had worked for over 12mths ( with retraining I was able to walk this dog offlead through a mob or in a paddock with running sheep then one day he said not today those fluffy butts retreating are too much for me to ignore and he also went through a hotwire that had managed to keep bulls in and he got belted several times as he was scrambling over the fence, so he actually blew off two huge punishers ) and the greys at work going through hotwires they know are there to chase a bunny.

The above is the reason I'm not too certain about rule no 6 being gospel either. I'm certainly not saying you don't need to be consistant I personally think it is a dog trainers greatest asset, but not 100% reliable but then what is apart from death and taxes

cheers

M-J

[Erny]

What is this new and mysterious method of dog training you speak of.

Hey Jeff :D

Good to 'see' you. You have been MIA? I haven't 'seen' you around in a while. Your dogs been treating you good?

Sorry to OP for OT.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Erny

[Jeff Jones]

What is this new and mysterious method of dog training you speak of. :D

Hey Jeff

Good to 'see' you. You have been MIA? I haven't 'seen' you around in a while. Your dogs been treating you good?

Sorry to OP for OT.

I have been lurking in the rafters working out evil and horrible ways to.... pm sent :p

Edited January 9, 2010 by Jeff Jones

[Diablo]

What I discredit is the assumption that negative reinforcement will cause breakdowns in all dogs because it doesn't.

I don't think anyone is saying that, though. I don't know about others, but my point has always been that following those eight rules can be quite difficult, even if you know your dog well and have good timing and a good understanding of dog body language. I have met professional dog trainers that at best possess decent timing and that's all. Why should we as dog lovers encourage the use of something that is not only unpleasant to dogs but difficult to pull off effectively? If I waited around to correct Erik every time he did something I didn't like I'd spend most of my life unteaching him things I don't like instead of teaching him things I do like. It's so easy to start training proactively instead of just reacting to whatever your dog comes up with and keep the punishments for fixing accidents in messing up with environmental reinforcement control. It's much easier to stick to the eight rules that way, and what's more, you get to spend most of your time telling your dog they are awesome and putting lots of positive reinforcement in the piggy bank for those moments you do decide you need something negative in the mix.

Dogs like every other one of God's creatures need to learn the consequences of it's actions either good or not so good and I don't believe it's a healthy practice to deny a dog this privilege and learning curve in life. Many subjects as an example dog aggression, regularly appear on these boards with frustration as how to manage this situation and correct the behaviour. Positive reinforcement conditioning may correct the situation in time but what "will" correct the situation very quickly in these situations is often known as "blocking"...............yes!!!, negative reinforcment if you aggress, you will loose your air supply and a dog that can't breath will die from that effect which a dog learns fast. If it hurts the dog by choking off it's air supply you are doing the dog a "huge" favour of kindness to experience that type of correction as the next phase of aggression with the failure of positive methods is the vet clinic to be PTS and the brief period of blocking that causes unpleasantness to the dog has ultimately given the dog a chance at rehablilitation to live their full life.

My GSD has a high level of civil aggression and is naturally stranger and dog aggressive and will bite people given the opportunity untrained. In three blocking corrections along with positive reinforcement for not reacting, my dog in the hands of the inexperienced and destined for rainbow bridge uncontrolled can now be walked through a shopping centre and have strangers pat him in complete safety. Is it a nice feeling to place a dog in a blocking correction???.......NO it's bloody horrible, but it's far better than the thought of saying a premature goodbye to your friend at the vet clinic because you were too obsessed with purely positive training methods.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Diablo

[Kavik]

All I reply to that is that I feel much more confident handling my DA dog now when I have used a clicker and food to deal with her aggression than when I was using corrections. I feel much better and less stressed to be looking for a way to reward her for looking at me instead of the other dog than when I was waiting for her to aggress so I could give her a correction. A mindset rather than a problem with the method, possibly, but it really made a difference to my outlook when walking and training her.